User talk:Louis/Dragonfly Energy trade libel suit Will Prowse: Difference between revisions
Jackalgirl (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
One thing that might be tangential to the core of this specific topic, yet potentially even more worrying is that these batteries are sold and marketed as UL Listed. If this is really the case, how can they display such major flaws during normal use? | One thing that might be tangential to the core of this specific topic, yet potentially even more worrying is that these batteries are sold and marketed as UL Listed. If this is really the case, how can they display such major flaws during normal use? | ||
If they are indeed UL Listed as branded? | If they are indeed UL Listed as branded? | ||
[[File: | [[File:BB10012 data sheet UL marks.png|thumb|UL Markings in PDF]] | ||
I can not find any UL Listing for Battle Born batteries over at https://productiq.ulprospector.com/en/search?term=Battle%20Born&page=1 | I can not find any UL Listing for Battle Born batteries over at https://productiq.ulprospector.com/en/search?term=Battle%20Born&page=1 | ||
The PDF also contain the following listed information: | The PDF also contain the following listed information: | ||
[[File: | [[File:BB10012 data sheet - Recognized Specifications.png|thumb|"Recognized Specifications for BB10012"]] | ||
If someone with access to the physical product cn check to see if the product(s) bear any control / issue number (4–6 digits) | If someone with access to the physical product cn check to see if the product(s) bear any control / issue number (4–6 digits) | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
--[[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 06:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | --[[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 06:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
:[[File:Intertek UL Certified .png|thumb|Intertek Certified Products]] | :[[File:Intertek UL Certified.png|thumb|Intertek Certified Products]] | ||
:[[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 12:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | :[[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 12:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:Part of me feels like they got mixed up, themselves, and edited the wrong spec sheet prior to filing their lawsuit. [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 15:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | :Part of me feels like they got mixed up, themselves, and edited the wrong spec sheet prior to filing their lawsuit. [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 15:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
::Will did actually test a BB1275 battery at 49A (YT: /watch?v=GIE1-hIhbvM). The datasheet did say 50A at some point on BB's website but I did find a datasheet dated Sep 30 2022 that says 37.5A (can't post the link because the Wiki doesn't allow me to). This still is a screwup on Dragonfly's part BUT I'm afraid they might have some ground here. [[User:Pmichniewski|Pmichniewski]] ([[User talk:Pmichniewski|talk]]) 20:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
:::Possibly they changed it to 37.5A, and then changed it back to 50A? @[[User:Je|Je]] posted about it below, having taken a look at the metadata of the new file, as well as one that is still on Defender's site about this battery model, with a metadata "last modified" date of 30 December 2024. Plus, Louis just posted today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3QaHx0--mU) about the Wayback Machine having the pre-June 50A datasheet for the BB1275 here: https://web.archive.org/web/20251016152325/https://battlebornbatteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/BB1275-Standard-Datasheet_V2-compressed.pdf (note that it is "V2" in the filename). | |||
:::According to the inspector in Preview, the creation/modification date (they're both the same) for the file on Archive.org is Dec 30, 2024 at 5:43 PM. No author or email on this one. [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 21:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
::::It has the same filename as the one on the Defender site, so I'm going to lean towards the idea that Defender got their copy directly from Battle Born from the older, original page for the BB1275. [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 21:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
:::Out of curiosity, where did you find the data sheet from 2022 for the BB1275 that references 37.5A charging rate? Do you have a link? [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 23:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
::::Let's see if the Wiki will let me post the link: www.invertersupply.com/media/data/BB1275_Manual-Edition.PIM_BB1275Rev009_07282022.pdf [[User:Pmichniewski|Pmichniewski]] ([[User talk:Pmichniewski|talk]]) 07:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
:::::Awesome, thank you. I snagged a copy of it. So the naming implies that this is Rev 9, dated 28 July 2022. Per the metadata, the file was created (and last modified) on 2 August 2022. The author is Caitlin Spara, and the PDF was created via something called GPL Ghostscript 9.50. | |||
:::::[[File:BB1275 certification marks (2 August 2022).png|alt=Screenshot excerpt of the mark information from the BB1275 Manual, Rev 9, dated 2 August 2022 (in the metadata). There is an ETL mark showing for Canada and US, with the number "5011501". There is a mark with a black and white image of a globe and an airplane, reading "Conforms to UN38.3". There is text reading "Conforms to UL STD 52133.2, Certified to CSA STD (possibly an 8, or a 3)22.2# 62133-2, Conforms to UL STD 2054" and a graphic of a trash can, with an X over it, over a short solid black bar. Note: the PDF used what appears to be a JPG to insert the mark information, and consequently the quality of these graphics is poor compared to the other information in the manual.|thumb|Certification marks from the 2 August 2022 (per the file's metadata) version of the BB1275 manual]] | |||
:::::The mark information in the manual seems to show an ETL mark for Canada and US, with the number "5011501". There is a mark with a black and white image of a globe and an airplane, reading "Conforms to UN38.3" (this has to do with the battery being safe for shipping/transportation). There is text reading "Conforms to UL STD 52133.2, Certified to CSA STD (possibly an 8, or a 3)22.2# 62133-2, Conforms to UL STD 2054" and a graphic of a trash can, with an X over it, over a short solid black bar (which I presume means "don't dispose of this in regular trash"). The author dropped what appears to be a JPG into the original file instead of low-loss graphics (like PNG) or actual vector files (e.g., SVG), so it's a bit hard to read for me. [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 14:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
::::::Oh, sorry, I just noticed that I posted the wrong link. Here's the one from Sep 30 2022 that I mentioned: www.invertersupply.com/media/data/BB1275-Datasheet-9-30-22-Web-PDF-X.pdf [[User:Pmichniewski|Pmichniewski]] ([[User talk:Pmichniewski|talk]]) 15:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
:::::::No sweat. In my eagerness to get the marks out of the previous one, I completely forgot that I was looking for the charging info. ; ) | |||
:::::::Okay, this one also is dated in the filename earlier than the actual creation date: the file date suggests September 30, 2022, but the creation/last modified date on the file's metadata is November 9, 2022. The author is "Adobe Acrobat 22.2". | |||
:::::::So it seems like the max charging rate was, at the end of 2022, 37.5A, and then later got changed to 50A, then back to 37.5A. | |||
:::::::I suppose a plausible story could be that someone at Dragonfly got confused between the models, and updated the data sheet to reflect BB120002's max charging rate, then didn't realize this until after Will's video, and then changed it back really quickly to support the lawsuit? Still, if there was a data sheet available in 2024 that had different information, and which was downloadable from Dragonfly's Battle Born website for that battery, I cannot see how they can claim that Will should have somehow known that this was incorrect and that he should have been using information from a data sheet that was available in 2022. [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 21:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Hi there - sorry you've been having issue with posting links (we have fairly aggressive filters for link-posting in user-space, as it's a common tactic of SEO spam bots that constantly target any MediaWiki instance). James gave you the confirmed role, so you shouldn't have any more troubles with editing! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 14:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
==UL Listed/Certified== | ==UL Listed/Certified== | ||
| Line 57: | Line 73: | ||
:::::So either the observed faults were not applicable to the sample batteries tested and certified, Dragonfly did a switch, or the certifications are worthless. I started looking into how to hold companies with such claimed certification accountable as well as the testing services, because I refuse to accept that the heat, arcing and molten plastics would successfully pass such a certification. | :::::So either the observed faults were not applicable to the sample batteries tested and certified, Dragonfly did a switch, or the certifications are worthless. I started looking into how to hold companies with such claimed certification accountable as well as the testing services, because I refuse to accept that the heat, arcing and molten plastics would successfully pass such a certification. | ||
:::::Maybe it is worth sending Intertek a link to the videos and ask them? [[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 14:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | :::::Maybe it is worth sending Intertek a link to the videos and ask them? [[User:Traste|Traste]] ([[User talk:Traste|talk]]) 14:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
::::::Yes, I definitely think it's worth that. I have some thoughts, and will see what I can do. Thank you! | |||
::::::I think the thing that distresses me the most about all of this is how hard it is to understand it. At this point, I feel like all those marks are like the fronts of a Potemkin village. But I'm probably just being cynical (again). [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 15:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Here is the letter I sent via Intertek's general inquiries form, which required a bunch of personal information (and I took one for the team and supplied actual contact information because I would really like to get the answers to this if they are willing to entertain me, and haven't been inundated with requests for information about this already): | |||
:::::::-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | |||
:::::::To whom it may concern, good morning, | |||
:::::::I'm writing to you to ask about your certification for Dragonfly's Battle Born 100AH battery, model BB10012, which is listed in your database here: https://ramuk.intertekconnect.com/webclients/its/dlp/products.nsf/4c8700f3b75987a08525777700583333/8080c4204b23df7d86258b880059c69a?OpenDocument | |||
:::::::For reference, please see this video by Will Prowse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7DSCKO-Bo&list=PL7bvIB2TPsCgD4TxUxf3szWyxRz_HwUd1&index=5&pp=iAQB - it's part of a larger Battle Born review and testing series, and I will summarize this for you since I respect your time. | |||
:::::::Will tested a brand new Battle Born BB10012 model battery, charging at 49A, through cycle testing in accordance with the battery's specifications (charged at -1A of the rated 50A, discharged at 99A, -1A from the max discharge of 100A). He was trying to test for a repeatedly-reported issue with the battery: that the positive terminal is bolted to its bus using aluminum bolts with a plastic spacer (PA-765), which deforms under the heat load of current passing through the bolt and nuts, and result in a loose terminal. However, what happened during his testing (after he had to lower the testing specifications because the battery was disconnecting when cycled at its advertised rate) was that the negative side of the battery heated up so badly after 30 cycles (far fewer than the 3,000-5,000 cycles advertised by the company) that it deformed the battery's case and the battery completely ceased to function. | |||
:::::::Please see this site for a full written explanation of the situation, including other technical research, from Louis Rossmann: https://consumerrights.wiki/w/User:Louis/Dragonfly_Energy_trade_libel_suit_Will_Prowse | |||
:::::::I have a few questions about your certification of the BB10012 battery. | |||
:::::::o Did you actually test the BB10012 100AH, 12V battery? | |||
:::::::o Were you able to cycle the BB10012 between 3,000 and 5,000 times at the stated charge/discharge capacities without failure, overheating, deformations, or other safety issues occuring? | |||
:::::::o If so, was the plastic spacer used in the connection of the positive terminal present in the model that you tested? | |||
:::::::o If so, could you explain how a plastic spacer that deforms and leads to loose connections (not "disconnects" as the manufacturer claims) could still conform to a safety standard? | |||
:::::::o Do you require companies that make changes to their products to retest with you, or submit their changes to you for review? | |||
:::::::o If so, are there any changes that are considered minor enough to not require retesting/recertification? | |||
:::::::o If so, do you have any kind of guidelines as to what would characterize a change as "minor" in this sense? | |||
:::::::o Would the insertion of a PA-765 spacer within the assembly of the positive terminal's connection to the bus be qualified as a "minor" change, or would it require you to retest the unit? [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 16:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
::::::Also, with respect to the "what do these words mean", Will says it specifically at 6:06 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5qQYGLi4B8&list=PL7bvIB2TPsCgD4TxUxf3szWyxRz_HwUd1&index=7 - "Also, on this sticker it says, 'conforms', 'certified', and 'conforms'; that does not mean 'UL Listed', that means it's conforming to a standard, probably with a third-party lab." (Which would be Intertek) [[User:Jackalgirl|Jackalgirl]] ([[User talk:Jackalgirl|talk]]) 16:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | |||
::As an example: on eTrailer, I found some other RV batteries: | ::As an example: on eTrailer, I found some other RV batteries: | ||
::o Dometic's "Go Power" battery, quick-start guide here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/catsy.549/GP-LiFePO4-100+Quick+Guide.pdf - this battery doesn't show any UL marks; it just claims that it "conforms to UL 2054", which is the standard for "Household and Commercial Batteries" (https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL2054_3_S_20211117). I can't, of course, tell what this standard actually details from the source, but found this from a company in Germany: https://www.vri-gmbh.de/en/vri-knowledge-base/standards-and-regulations/ul-2054: "UL 2054 is a safety standard for portable primary (non-rechargeable) and secondary (rechargeable) batteries used as power sources in products. The standard covers both single cells and multi-cell configurations (battery packs) and defines construction requirements, test procedures and marking requirements. Unlike UL 1642, which focuses on lithium cells at the cell level, UL 2054 addresses the battery and battery pack level for all chemistries. For lithium cells used in battery packs, UL 2054 references the requirements of UL 1642 [JG: which is the safety standard for lithium batteries, both rechargeable and non-]." | ::o Dometic's "Go Power" battery, quick-start guide here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/catsy.549/GP-LiFePO4-100+Quick+Guide.pdf - this battery doesn't show any UL marks; it just claims that it "conforms to UL 2054", which is the standard for "Household and Commercial Batteries" (https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL2054_3_S_20211117). I can't, of course, tell what this standard actually details from the source, but found this from a company in Germany: https://www.vri-gmbh.de/en/vri-knowledge-base/standards-and-regulations/ul-2054: "UL 2054 is a safety standard for portable primary (non-rechargeable) and secondary (rechargeable) batteries used as power sources in products. The standard covers both single cells and multi-cell configurations (battery packs) and defines construction requirements, test procedures and marking requirements. Unlike UL 1642, which focuses on lithium cells at the cell level, UL 2054 addresses the battery and battery pack level for all chemistries. For lithium cells used in battery packs, UL 2054 references the requirements of UL 1642 [JG: which is the safety standard for lithium batteries, both rechargeable and non-]." | ||
| Line 72: | Line 107: | ||
A funny detail I noticed is that if you view the metadata of the [https://battlebornbatteries.com/cdn/shop/files/BB1275_Data_Sheet.pdf updated documentation PDF], it says it was created by <code>[email protected]</code> on 2026-06-01 20:38:36 UTC. The [https://defender.com/assets/pdf/battle-born/bb1275-standard-datasheet_v2-compressed.pdf previous file] was created on 2024-12-30 23:43:34 UTC and does not have an author attached. [[User:Je|Je]] ([[User talk:Je|talk]]) 00:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | A funny detail I noticed is that if you view the metadata of the [https://battlebornbatteries.com/cdn/shop/files/BB1275_Data_Sheet.pdf updated documentation PDF], it says it was created by <code>[email protected]</code> on 2026-06-01 20:38:36 UTC. The [https://defender.com/assets/pdf/battle-born/bb1275-standard-datasheet_v2-compressed.pdf previous file] was created on 2024-12-30 23:43:34 UTC and does not have an author attached. [[User:Je|Je]] ([[User talk:Je|talk]]) 00:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC) | ||
==additional video?== | |||
I found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7KqYu8LGtU&t=388s | |||
One of the people in the video, Denis Phares, says: "... whereas these batteries, Battle Born batteries, can actually charge at full capacity constantly. They'll take the full current." | |||